#TBT 

Only if they had coaches challenge then 🤔

the part of the puck in the air was was more than on the line, from that angle it looks like it's in at first. There is no conclusive evidence that it crossed the line, no goal.

+Geoff S Coach's challenge is only for offsides plays and goaltender interference

That was NOT in, but thanks for playing. XD

@@gregersen1926 I suggest looking up the “Parallax View”.

No conclusive evidence.

+Buck Look at the repay the puck was clearly past the red line

#1 that angle is not used in official reviews because of how it makes the puck appear further across the line than it actually is. #2 no other angles show the puck crossing the line, therefore you can't overturn the call on the ice which was no goal. #3 there was still 6-7 minutes left in the game, had the puck crossed the line Tampa Bay would have had plenty of time to tie the game up and send it to OT. #4 Calgary had the rest of game 6 AND game 7 to win, they didn't, get over it.

Exactly

Well, I guess your opinion was wrong 🤷🏻‍♂️

I remember him on the 09 Blackhawks. He was certainly a beast without which I doubt we make the Conference Finals that year.

They don't use that angle in official reviews because of how it makes the puck appear further into the net than it actually is. If it went to review it would have been ruled inconclusive and the score would have remained the same.

Redirected with the skate anyway. No goal

You can redirect puck with skate, just no distinct kicking motion. Definitely a goal ...

Then y is Tampa Bays name on the Cup in 2004?

⁠Because Gary Butthead, wanted a “sun belt” team to win it.

Watch it closely. The Tampa Bay player was dragged down to the ice first. It backfired as the Flames player was tripped up allowing the initial shot to the goal.

@@ssj2gokuvsgallade He was tangled up with Iginla and went down. Didnt look like anything. But the Tampa player for sure kicked his legs out and tripped the player going to the point. But what does it matter. I'm still hurt by this loss sixteen years later, but missed/bad calls are part of the game and Calgary surely benefitted from it from time to time too.

i was more frusturated they couldnt score when the TB goalie lost the puck behind the net 30 seconds into 1st OT. Ignala could of stolen the puck and the net would of been wide open for at least 5 seconds

In the old NHL you had to take your skate off and stab someone with it to get called for a penalty in a playoff OT

Maybe you're a masochist?

Because it's fucking 2004 dumbass there was no coaches challenge

+Sportshighlights HD sarcasm yeez

Sportshighlights HD r/woooosh

Stay mad

@Paolo Rossi flames absolutely robbed of the cup

@Paolo Rossi nah man shoulda been a goal

@Paolo Rossi I am a physicist

Yes it was

That's what she said!

Thanks that’s what I was looking for. Same as Titans saying they were 1 yard away from winning the SB. They were 1 yard from being down 1, kicking the the PA and then having to go to OT.

Nope, sorry.

@@user-zb9gv1xr6q yes it did

@@microwave3801 Nope.Khabby kept it out. Get over it. Not that blame you for hoping so. If the roles were reversed I'd say the same thing. I all boils down to the fact that the rest of the leagues hates NTM teams and the entire country was pinning thier hope on Calgary being that the Habs were the last team from Canada to win the Cup. The Flames were an excellent team but they lost fair and square.There was even video evidence that showed such.

unfortunately that's sports 101 it doesn't matter that we didn't score again after we got "robbed" because of one play. i didn't know the nhl became the NFL though. lol

It was in

go play beach volleyball or swim around in your gator swamps southie

Shut up and go make another dirty hit Radko

Evan Singh Radko is right wasnt in

Radko Gudas I'm about to say something that will put you and your provoked parallax view beliefs to permanent sleep. LISTEN CAREFULLY NHL HAS HAD 9 SEPERATE NHL GOAL LINES REVIEWS THAT INVOLVED A FRONT SIMILAR VIEW AND HERES THE CASE OF THE MOST RECENT ONE, in 2016 Round 2 Game 1 Washingon Capitals vs, Pittsburg Penguins an OT goal scored by TJ Oshie at the explicit immediate same view and same style was scored at the goal line on Murray, the take by the NHL review committee was whether or not there was white space between the puck and the goal line on which it was confirmed there was. TJ Oshie's OT game deciding goal was reviewed and counted as Capitals had won the game on a game explicitly similar to the one scored by Gelinas. Conclusion to my argument is: ACCEPT THE FACE THE NHL DIDN'T WANT A CANADIAN CUP CHAMPION AND TO SPREAD THE SPORT WANTED A TB WIN TO SPREAD AN OVERMARKET IN THE SOUTHERN AND DESERT STATES FURTHERING THE EXPOSURE OF THE SPORTS. Now I'll wait to hear you say that that WAS YES A GOAL The Calgary Flames had won the 2004 Stanley Cup...

@@jaskaransangha7241 The difference between that goal and this one is that on the Oshie goal, the puck was sitting on the ice, so seeing ice between the puck and the goal line means it was definitively in the net. Here, since the puck was in the air, merely seeing ice between the puck and the goal line doesn't provide conclusive evidence that the puck was in the net because you are looking under the puck to see the patch of ice. In other words, the puck could be hovering over the goal line and a little bit of ice would be showing underneath it, but the puck is not in the net. I'm not saying that it wasn't in the net in this case, but from the camera angles provided, it was inconclusive at best.

Yes it was